4 ms·

Just stop. Stop printing shitcoins, they are worthless and cannot be the basis of a UBI system. Why would anyone buy them? They will -> 0 like everything else.

Just stop. Stop printing shitcoins, they are worthless and cannot be the basis of a UBI system. Why would anyone buy them? They will -> 0 like everything else. It’s all scams. Have a think about how you can create value, trade that value for sats (a neutral store of value) and distribute sats if you want a UBI system. The tech exists today, but one would need to actually create value rather than minting it out of nothing.

randomhodler84 4y ago
Oh it worse, it’s an erc20 on eth. GG, I’m sure those $1 a day people are prepared to pay $10/tx to spend it. Clueless. Stick to Bitcoin folks.
- sparksparkapach 4y ago
  Damn when did hacker news readers end up not reading the article. It literally says at the end it will be a token on Polygon, 1 cent fees for doing token related activity
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    The white paper said “ERC20 on eth”. The article said polygon. Regardless, I do like polygon for its cheap fees (today); it is practically better than eth in most ways. However, it is just an eth side chain, and the whole “don’t need to commit tx for all eternity for all every purchases” applies here. I don’t believe it is possible to scale this anywhere where it needs to be. For this, we need Lightning network style constructions.
    - glocoin 4y ago
      Global Income Coin is an economic model carrying a monetary policy (i.e. the bottom-up distribution of newly created money), not a technology. We do not inherently care on what platform we implement it, and will try to use existing technologies rather than developing our own. We do want to get started, so we're choosing technology that works today over technology that works tomorrow. Lightning is promising. The first tether transaction on lightning was only a month ago, however [1]. So that's not yet a boring enough solution. Ethereum and Polygon won't (today) scale worldwide, but if we're able to gain traction we'll (a) branch out to every other network if necessary (b) contribute to networks so they can start to get to global scale [1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/tether-sent-using-the-lightning-network https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/tether-sent-using-the-...
- rvz 4y ago
  > Stick to Bitcoin folks. No. Here's why: 'Bitcoin' cannot be used as a form of on-chain payments system and as peer-to-peer electronic cash system as defined in its whitepaper and it is beyond useless as a currency. Henceforth, Since it has completely failed in El Salvador, why would it succeed anywhere else due to all of the above?
cuteboy19 4y ago
But if you had a way to easily create value, why would you give it away? If philanthropy is the answer, why all the fuss about crypto anyways? You can just give away actual useful money instead.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  Sats are the easiest, cheapest thing to send to people globally. Lightning network is the only cryptocurrency construction that would permit such global payments. Launching an erc20 on eth is super dumb. You will destroy most of the value just sending it to folks, and they will need to then buy expensive eth to spend it. Makes no sense.
  - glocoin 4y ago
    > Sats are the easiest, cheapest thing to send to people globally Global Income Coin is an economic model carrying a monetary policy: the bottom-up distribution of newly created money. The economy currently mostly runs on inflationary currencies. This means a massive amount of new money is created each year. Taking that as a fact, we propose to distribute this directly and more fairly; Global Income Coin is the implementation of that idea. Sats can't carry that monetary policy since they're non-inflationary by design. So we can't use sats. > Lightning network is the only cryptocurrency construction that would permit such global payments We _could_ use Lightning, and we might indeed in the future if that's the tried and tested best solution. We're not married to any particular platform. We don't need global scale on day one. We're starting on Polygon (so transaction costs won't destroy all of the value)
- glocoin 4y ago
  That would be direct cash transfers funded by charitable donations, which we think is another great way to alleviate poverty. (If Global Income Coin succeeds it could be the network to carry these transfers.) What we're aiming to unlock is a donation-independent component in addition to that.
toss1 4y ago
IIRC, it was already tried years ago with Auroracoin. This was given to everyone in Iceland, supposedly initially (nominally) worth $20/coin. Icelanders merely had to opt-in and get their coin. Few did, and most seemed to sell immediately. Last I saw some years ago, there were multiple zeros to the right of the decimal point before the first significant digit of its value in any hard currency. Not that one try means all others will fail, but any new proposal must at least attempt to discover and overcome the factors of failures like that one. I don't see any such effort in this proposal. Too bad, because overall, the idea of distributing new currency from the bottom up is vastly superior to any other distribution proposal. Giving directly to the population will create the largest multiplier effect as the velocity of that money will be highest — almost all of it will be spent, and re-spent in a matter of days, whereas going into the banking system it will both be delayed in effect and also have much fewer transactions/currency_unit. But does it need a blockchain? Not convinced.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  Oh I was there for AUR launch back in the day. I think I even bought some! Not a good purchase in retrospect. There was another one around then too Mazacoin, distributing to First Nation folks. The idea was good, but shitcoins cannot hold their value. All these new folks refuse to learn the lessons of the past. I like the idea of bottom up distribution! Thing is, you need to distribute something that people want, can use, and will hold its value on the long tail. Blockchain is important for trustlessness between borders, that is all. LN tx don’t need blockchain txs for every spend — it’s state exchanges that can be committed to the chain on settlement.
glocoin 4y ago
> Why would anyone buy them? They will -> 0 like everything else. Agreed that generating token demand is one the main challenges. It's going to be very hard. After reaching a certain level of adoption, token value should become partly self-sustaining, and then newly minted tokens have value - this is how fiat currencies work (which have the benefit of being the only way to pay taxes, which we don't). But how to get to that critical mass? We have several solution directions, and will probably need a combination of them to work. We'll elaborate this further in the draft whitepaper soon. One of the solution directions that could be key especially in the early stages is a social movement of people that buy (and start using) the token because they agree with the mission of the project and want it to succeed. Adopting GLO is one of the most direct ways for individuals to contribute to a pro-UBI cause. This will only ever be a fraction of the total demand, of course, but can be a solid base to help solve the cold start problem.

randomhodler84 4y ago

Oh it worse, it’s an erc20 on eth. GG, I’m sure those $1 a day people are prepared to pay $10/tx to spend it. Clueless. Stick to Bitcoin folks.

sparksparkapach 4y ago
Damn when did hacker news readers end up not reading the article. It literally says at the end it will be a token on Polygon, 1 cent fees for doing token related activity
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  The white paper said “ERC20 on eth”. The article said polygon. Regardless, I do like polygon for its cheap fees (today); it is practically better than eth in most ways. However, it is just an eth side chain, and the whole “don’t need to commit tx for all eternity for all every purchases” applies here. I don’t believe it is possible to scale this anywhere where it needs to be. For this, we need Lightning network style constructions.
  - glocoin 4y ago
    Global Income Coin is an economic model carrying a monetary policy (i.e. the bottom-up distribution of newly created money), not a technology. We do not inherently care on what platform we implement it, and will try to use existing technologies rather than developing our own. We do want to get started, so we're choosing technology that works today over technology that works tomorrow. Lightning is promising. The first tether transaction on lightning was only a month ago, however [1]. So that's not yet a boring enough solution. Ethereum and Polygon won't (today) scale worldwide, but if we're able to gain traction we'll (a) branch out to every other network if necessary (b) contribute to networks so they can start to get to global scale [1] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/tether-sent-using-the-lightning-network https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/tether-sent-using-the-...
rvz 4y ago
> Stick to Bitcoin folks. No. Here's why: 'Bitcoin' cannot be used as a form of on-chain payments system and as peer-to-peer electronic cash system as defined in its whitepaper and it is beyond useless as a currency. Henceforth, Since it has completely failed in El Salvador, why would it succeed anywhere else due to all of the above?

cuteboy19 4y ago

But if you had a way to easily create value, why would you give it away? If philanthropy is the answer, why all the fuss about crypto anyways? You can just give away actual useful money instead.

randomhodler84 4y ago
Sats are the easiest, cheapest thing to send to people globally. Lightning network is the only cryptocurrency construction that would permit such global payments. Launching an erc20 on eth is super dumb. You will destroy most of the value just sending it to folks, and they will need to then buy expensive eth to spend it. Makes no sense.
- glocoin 4y ago
  > Sats are the easiest, cheapest thing to send to people globally Global Income Coin is an economic model carrying a monetary policy: the bottom-up distribution of newly created money. The economy currently mostly runs on inflationary currencies. This means a massive amount of new money is created each year. Taking that as a fact, we propose to distribute this directly and more fairly; Global Income Coin is the implementation of that idea. Sats can't carry that monetary policy since they're non-inflationary by design. So we can't use sats. > Lightning network is the only cryptocurrency construction that would permit such global payments We _could_ use Lightning, and we might indeed in the future if that's the tried and tested best solution. We're not married to any particular platform. We don't need global scale on day one. We're starting on Polygon (so transaction costs won't destroy all of the value)
glocoin 4y ago
That would be direct cash transfers funded by charitable donations, which we think is another great way to alleviate poverty. (If Global Income Coin succeeds it could be the network to carry these transfers.) What we're aiming to unlock is a donation-independent component in addition to that.

toss1 4y ago

IIRC, it was already tried years ago with Auroracoin. This was given to everyone in Iceland, supposedly initially (nominally) worth $20/coin. Icelanders merely had to opt-in and get their coin. Few did, and most seemed to sell immediately. Last I saw some years ago, there were multiple zeros to the right of the decimal point before the first significant digit of its value in any hard currency. Not that one try means all others will fail, but any new proposal must at least attempt to discover and overcome the factors of failures like that one. I don't see any such effort in this proposal. Too bad, because overall, the idea of distributing new currency from the bottom up is vastly superior to any other distribution proposal. Giving directly to the population will create the largest multiplier effect as the velocity of that money will be highest — almost all of it will be spent, and re-spent in a matter of days, whereas going into the banking system it will both be delayed in effect and also have much fewer transactions/currency_unit. But does it need a blockchain? Not convinced.

randomhodler84 4y ago
Oh I was there for AUR launch back in the day. I think I even bought some! Not a good purchase in retrospect. There was another one around then too Mazacoin, distributing to First Nation folks. The idea was good, but shitcoins cannot hold their value. All these new folks refuse to learn the lessons of the past. I like the idea of bottom up distribution! Thing is, you need to distribute something that people want, can use, and will hold its value on the long tail. Blockchain is important for trustlessness between borders, that is all. LN tx don’t need blockchain txs for every spend — it’s state exchanges that can be committed to the chain on settlement.

glocoin 4y ago

> Why would anyone buy them? They will -> 0 like everything else. Agreed that generating token demand is one the main challenges. It's going to be very hard. After reaching a certain level of adoption, token value should become partly self-sustaining, and then newly minted tokens have value - this is how fiat currencies work (which have the benefit of being the only way to pay taxes, which we don't). But how to get to that critical mass? We have several solution directions, and will probably need a combination of them to work. We'll elaborate this further in the draft whitepaper soon. One of the solution directions that could be key especially in the early stages is a social movement of people that buy (and start using) the token because they agree with the mission of the project and want it to succeed. Adopting GLO is one of the most direct ways for individuals to contribute to a pro-UBI cause. This will only ever be a fraction of the total demand, of course, but can be a solid base to help solve the cold start problem.